United States: TCEH Bankruptcy: SDNY Transfers Delaware Trust Company V. Wilmington Trust N.A. Intercreditor Dispute To Delaware Bankruptcy Court, Reaffirming Broad View Of Bankruptcy Jurisdiction - Update

Last Updated: November 9 2015
Article by Mark C. Ellenberg, Michele C. Maman, Ivan Loncar, Ellen Halstead, Thomas Curtin and Howard R. Hawkins, Jr.

Most Read Contributor in United States, September 2017

In Delaware Trust Company v. Wilmington Trust N.A., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently denied plaintiff 's motion to remand the case back to New York state court, and granted defendants' motion to transfer the case to the District of Delaware, from where it will be referred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The authors of this article discuss the case and its implications.

In an action arising from the huge TCEH Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in Delaware Trust Company v. Wilmington Trust N.A.1 denying plaintiff 's motion to remand the case back to New York state court, and granting defendants' motion to transfer the case to the District of Delaware, from where it will be referred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

The issue before the district court was whether a New York court, or the Delaware Bankruptcy Court where the Chapter 11 cases of Texas Competitive Electric Holdings LLC and certain of its affiliates (collectively, "TCEH") are pending, should resolve an intercreditor dispute regarding how to allocate the debtor's monthly adequate protection payments among its creditors. Resolution of this issue by Judge Engelmayer turned largely on whether the dispute over the allocation methodology for the payments is considered a "core" proceeding within the underlying TCEH Chapter 11 cases (i.e., one that either "arises under" or "arises in" the bankruptcy proceeding). The district court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants and decided that the matter is indeed core, thereby warranting that the case be properly heard by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. If a dispute "arises under" or "arises in" the ongoing bankruptcy proceeding, it must be transferred to the bankruptcy court overseeing the bankruptcy case. 2

The decision is important because it reaffirms the often challenged principle that contractual disputes between creditors may qualify as "core" proceedings in circumstances where, as here, the underlying dispute could only arise in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding.


In April 2014, TCEH filed for Chapter 11 protection in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. TCEH's bankruptcy case is one of the largest bankruptcy cases in United States history with a capital structure consisting of over $25 billion of first lien debt, including:

(i) $22.6 billion of debt outstanding under a credit agreement (the "Bank Debt"),

(ii) $1.75 billion of debt outstanding under a first lien indenture (the "First Lien Notes"); and

(iii) $1.255 billion of debt outstanding under first lien interest rate swap and commodity hedge agreements (the "First Lien Swaps" and together with the First Lien Notes and Bank Debt, the "First Lien Obligations").

Each of the First Lien Obligations rank pari passu and have a lien on substantially all of TCEH's assets. In connection with the issuance of the First Lien Obligations, TCEH and holders of the First Lien Obligations in 2007 entered into an Intercreditor Agreement, which contained a permissive New York choice of forum clause, and in certain circumstances governs the rights and priorities of the holders of the First Lien Obligations with respect to their collateral. 3

Shortly after filing its Chapter 11 petition, TCEH filed a motion seeking authorization to use cash collateral. As part of that motion, TCEH requested authorization to provide adequate protection to the holders of the First Lien Obligations, as compensation for the diminution in value of their collateral during the Chapter 11 case. On June 6, 2014, the bankruptcy court entered a cash collateral order, which provided that each of the holders of the First Lien Obligations would: "receive from the TCEH Debtors their ratable share" of the aggregate amount of monthly adequate protection payments. 4 Under the express terms of the order, each creditor's ratable share is calculated based on the proportion of the First Lien Obligations owing as of the petition date. Accordingly, post-petition interest is not included in the calculation of each creditor's ratable share.

At the June 2014 hearing for the cash collateral order, Aurelius Capital Management, a first lien noteholder, argued that the Intercreditor Agreement requires that each first lien creditor's ratable share of the adequate protection payments must be calculated on a rolling monthly basis to include post-petition interest (the "Post-Petition Calculation"). Aurelius also contended that the calculation of each creditor's pro rata share of adequate protection payments would be a precursor to distributions made under TCEH's plan. Ultimately, the parties agreed to include in the cash collateral order a holdback mechanism, wherein the difference between (A) the petition date allocation calculation and (B) the amounts that the noteholders would otherwise receive under the Post-Petition Calculation included is deducted from the swap counterparties and lenders' monthly adequate protection payments. Such amounts were to be held in escrow pending a resolution of the intercreditor dispute.

On March 13, 2015, Delaware Trust Company, as indenture trustee for the First Lien Notes, filed a complaint in New York state court againstWilmington Trust N.A, in its capacity as collateral agent and administrative agent, seeking (i) a declaration that under the intercreditor agreement post-petition interest had to be included in calculating each creditor's ratable share of past and future adequate protection payments and (ii) specific performance releasing the holdback amounts to the plaintiff. Shortly thereafter, Morgan Stanley and J. Aron, holders of the First Lien Swaps moved to intervene in the litigation, and the administrative agent removed the case to federal court.

The plaintiff then moved to remand the case to New York state court on the grounds that the action was a non-core contractual dispute that would not have any impact on TCEH's bankruptcy case. The plaintiff argued that a federal court would lack subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the dispute, or at a minimum, should be required to abstain from resolving the dispute. The administrative agent and intervenor defendants subsequently cross-moved to transfer the case to the Delaware Bankruptcy Court on the grounds that (i) the resolution of the dispute would require an interpretation of federal bankruptcy law (including whether post-petition interest would even be permissible under the Bankruptcy Code) and (ii) the dispute did not exist independently from the bankruptcy case. The defendants therefore argued that remand would be inappropriate, as the action was a "core" dispute that arose in TCEH's Chapter 11 case.


The district court concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction because in the context of bankruptcy proceedings, a federal court has jurisdiction over all civil proceedings arising under Title 11, or arising in or related to cases under Title 11. Here, the district court held that the action arose in TCEH's Chapter 11 case for several reasons.

First, the district court found that the action had no practical existence but for the bankruptcy proceedings. Specifically, the intercreditor dispute over the adequate protection payments could only have arisen in the context of the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings because the concept of adequate protection derives from the Bankruptcy Code. The district court found it telling that while the parties had been signatories to the Intercreditor Agreement since 2007, no dispute emerged until TCEH's bankruptcy filing. Thus, the entire dispute— which centered on the right to receive adequate protection payments—would have no existence but for the bankruptcy case, and therefore such claims could only "arise in" the bankruptcy case.

Second, the district court held that the dispute was core because it would affect the allocation of the Debtors' property, and the allocation of the Debtors' property is a core bankruptcy function. Here, the district court found that the action would affect the allocation of TCEH's property because the plaintiff 's complaint explicitly sought a declaration and specific performance that all future monthly adequate protection payments be allocated using the Post- Petition Calculation. According to the district court, the plaintiff 's request for prospective relief would unavoidably impact TCEH's property and on that basis is a core proceeding.

Third, the district court rejected and labeled as misleading plaintiff 's argument that an intercreditor contract dispute cannot be a core proceeding, and that what was at issue was a rather routine contract action involving a pre-bankruptcy contract. Relying on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision in In re U.S. Lines, Inc.5 and the Southern District of New York's decision in In re Extended Stay,6 the court noted that a contractual dispute between creditors may be core where the dispute is not independent of the reorganization, meaning it is either (i) the type of proceeding that is unique to or uniquely affected by the bankruptcy proceedings or (ii) the type of proceeding that would directly affect a core bankruptcy function. The district court concluded that the dispute over the adequate protection payments at play in this case was not independent of TCEH's bankruptcy case because the dispute emerged in the bankruptcy proceedings, and was intertwined with them.

In particular, the court concluded that the dispute was "uniquely affected by" TCEH's bankruptcy because Aurelius previously admitted that disputes over allocations made under the Intercreditor Agreement would be intertwined with the plan confirmation process. According to the district court, Aurelius' prior statements in the bankruptcy case suggested "that the resolution of this present allocation dispute will have sequellae in the bankruptcy proceedings." 7 Moreover, the district court also found that the action appeared likely to affect a core bankruptcy function, including whether to confirm TCEH's plan of reorganization. Consequently, the district court held that although the action did concern the interpretation of a contract, the dispute was core because it arose from and was intertwined with the broader bankruptcy and plan confirmation process.

Fourth, the court found that the action was core because the dispute potentially would require a court to consider the interaction between the Intercreditor Agreement and bankruptcy law. By way of example, the court noted that the Post-Petition Calculation could potentially conflict with Section 506 of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that post-petition interest is to no longer accrue unless secured creditors are oversecured. Likewise, the district court found that whether the monthly adequate protection payments qualified as "Collateral or any proceeds thereof " (as such term is used in the Intercreditor Agreement) may hinge on an interpretation of the cash collateral order and the Bankruptcy Code.

Because the district court determined that the action was core, it therefore found that the plaintiff 's request for mandatory abstention was moot. In addition, the court held that permissive abstention was inappropriate because the interests of efficiency and economy strongly favored a comprehensive "one-stop shop" resolution of the dispute in the bankruptcy proceeding. Finally, the court granted the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the Delaware bankruptcy court on the grounds that:

(i) the action could have been brought in Delaware;

(ii) the interests of justice would be served by transferring the case given that the dispute was interrelated with the bankruptcy case; and

(iii) a transfer would be convenient for all of the parties.

The district court thus indicated that the matter should be heard by a judge who is intimately familiar with the facts, issues, and entities of the bankruptcy generally, and with the facts of the dispute specifically.


Judge Engelmayer's decision in Delaware Trust reaffirms the broad scope of bankruptcy jurisdiction, even in instances where the underlying dispute is between creditors and based on the interpretation of a prepetition contract. Where, as in Delaware Trust, the action is intertwined with the bankruptcy case, a court may conclude that a contractual dispute between creditors is a core proceeding. This decision may also potentially impact another pending TCEH intercreditor dispute commenced in New York by Marathon Asset Management, which also seeks an interpretation of the same Intercreditor Agreement at issue in Delaware Trust, and where there is likewise a dispute over bankruptcy jurisdiction. 8 It remains to be seen whether SDNY Judge Analisa Torres, presiding over the Marathon action, will be persuaded by Judge Engelmayer's decision and find that the dispute in that case would also most appropriately be decided in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.


1. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP represents Morgan Stanley Capital Group in TCEH's Chapter 11 case, as well as in its capacity as an intervenor defendant in the Delaware Trust litigation.

2. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b), 1412.

3. Wilmington Trust N.A. is the successor collateral agent under the Intercreditor Agreement, and is also the administrative agent for the Bank Debt.

4. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., et. al., Case No. 14-10979 (Dkt. 855).

5. 197 F.3d 631 (2d Cir. 1999).

6. 435 B.R. 139 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

7. Delaware Trust Company v. Wilmington Trust N.A., 15-cv-02883-PAE (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2015).

8. Marathon Asset Mgmt., LP v. Wilmington Trust, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-04727 (AT)(AJP) (S.D.N.Y.).

Previously published in Pratt’s Journal Of Bankruptcy Law

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.